My Evidence Challenge

[Tiberius]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

 

[Nostromo]

None that I can think of.

 

[AV1611VET]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

An occurring event.

 

[Eudaimonist]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

A practical difference to whom? If you are the event, then the fact that you occurred makes all the difference in the world to you. However, if you have left no evidence of yourself, then you will not make any difference to anyone else.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tiberius]

An occurring event.

Okay. How would you tell the difference between an event that never occured and an event that occured but left no evidence?

 

[AV1611VET]

Okay. How would you tell the difference between an event that never occured and an event that occured but left no evidence?

Shy of eyewitnesses, I don't think you can.

If an event occurred, and that event did not generate any evidence, then I would say that event is beyond science's scrutiny.

In short, a miracle has occurred.

Now -- let's say someone refuses to believe this event ever happened.

After all, science can't confirm it, there's no evidence, all the eyewitnesses have died, and therefore he feels it is safe to assume it didn't happen.

He would be wrong.

 

[Jazer]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

It's difficult to get a conviction with no evidence.

 

[Nostromo]

Shy of eyewitnesses, I don't think you can.

Eyewitnesses are evidence.

He would be wrong.

He would be, but not believing something when there's no evidence to support it is a reasonable way to approach the situation.

Believing things that have no supporting evidence opens the door to believing absolutely anything conceivable, with no regard for truth.

 

[AV1611VET]

Eyewitnesses are evidence.

That's why I said, "Shy of eyewitnesses..."; meaning, "In the absence of witnesses..."

He would be, but not believing something when there's no evidence to support it is a reasonable way to approach the situation.

There's nothing like someone being wrong, and having an excuse for being wrong, is there?

Believing things that have no supporting evidence opens the door to believing absolutely anything conceivable, with no regard for truth.

That's why a Manual of Truth would be needed, wouldn't it?

 

[Nostromo]

That's why I said, "Shy of eyewitnesses..."; meaning, "In the absence of witnesses..."

Indeed, but you commonly say you don't need evidence, despite relying on the testimony of others.

There's nothing like someone being wrong, and having an excuse for being wrong, is there?

I suppose you would know.

That's why a Manual of Truth would be needed, wouldn't it?

And in the absence of any evidence there's no way to determine if such a thing exists.

 

[FrenchyBearpaw]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

They would be indistinguishable one from the other.

 

[chilehed]

What practical difference is there between an event that leaves no evidence at all and an event that never occurred?

If evidence means "some effect which could in principle be measured", then in the natural world there is no such thing as an event that leaves no evidence. Such would in fact be a non-event.

 

[AV1611VET]

If evidence means "some effect which could in principle be measured", then in the natural world there is no such thing as an event that leaves no evidence. Such would in fact be a non-event.

How would you label the sudden disappearance of Enoch?

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Event or non-event?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Fiction.

How would you describe Tom Sawyer painting a fence? Event or non-event?

 

[AV1611VET]

Fiction.

Then I'll take his point with a grain of sand.

 

[Eudaimonist]

How would you label the sudden disappearance of Enoch?

Genesis 5:24 And Enoch walked with God: and he was not; for God took him.

Event or non-event?

Poetic license. That quote simply makes it sound like he died and nobody found his body.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[razeontherock]

Nope, Elisha saw him ascend. Which per Chilehed's convo with AV would be what, a non-event? Just ho hum?

 

[AV1611VET]

Poetic license.

Then I'll take his point with a mustard seed.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nope, Elisha saw him ascend. Which per Chilehed's convo with AV would be what, a non-event? Just ho hum?

No, that's when Elijah ascended up in a flaming chariot -- I'm talking about Enoch in Genesis 5.

(Probably someone/an event most of these Internet scientists never even heard of.)

 

[Tiberius]

Shy of eyewitnesses, I don't think you can.

If an event occurred, and that event did not generate any evidence, then I would say that event is beyond science's scrutiny.

In short, a miracle has occurred.

Now -- let's say someone refuses to believe this event ever happened.

After all, science can't confirm it, there's no evidence, all the eyewitnesses have died, and therefore he feels it is safe to assume it didn't happen.

He would be wrong.

But by by your own admission, one can never verify that. So there's no difference.